The Muthaship:IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: So you don't think he was defending himself?

He brazenly put himself in that situation which lead to the death of a person.through culpable negligence

Manslaughter

I can understand how someone would think he's guilty of manslaughter based on what they believe happened. But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

The appeal to emotion on this is so overwhelming that no amount of evidence would ever get through to people. A video could surface of TM jumping GZ from behind while screaming "die, whitey!" and people would still be calling for GM to be convicted of murder.

ChaosStar:IdBeCrazyIf: Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

As much as I think the guy is guilty as hell of manslaughter, I did laugh when I saw that shiat.

It's like....yYou do realize people that this is standard operating procedure for defense teams right?

So you don't think he was defending himself?

Well, you see, people equate zimmerman getting out of his car with some guy starting a fight at a bar and losing. Of course, there is no evidence at all that zimmerman started the confrontation, but that doesnt stop them.

They then backtrack and say, well maybe trayvon did, but who wouldnt. If zimmerman was in his car, Trayvon wouldnt have been there to punch him in the face and get on top of him and wail away.

Trayvon had to do it, you know.. because what if he saw zimmermans gun, so the only logicial move is to run to him and get in a fistfight.

The Muthaship:I can understand how someone would think he's guilty of manslaughter based on what they believe happened. But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

I WANT him to be guilty because I think what he did was way out of line, but I'd agree, there's just no evidence to find for murder or manslaughter. There may be grounds for a civil case of wrongful death, if the law doesn't shield him from that. The whole situation just sucks for all involved, and nobody is going to bring that kid back to life, but this trial is a farce.

AeAe:nekom: LasersHurt:Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good. A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died. It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.

not murder. manslaughter.

What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman admitted to following the guy in a car for a number of blocks, then when he sees an appropiate time he jumps out and goes after the kid with no sort of announcement of intent, he enters the personal space of Trayvon Martin to confront himself. If Martin had been older and shot Zimmerman and survive the case would have been thrown out as self defense, especially with the phone calls that Zimmerman made that he is after the kid.

Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?

If it's any consolation, I live in a largely black area. I'll let you know if things get out of hand. I doubt they will; most people seem more concerned with, you know, their jobs, and mowing their lawns and stuff.

Popcorn Johnny:The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

Plus judge wants the jury to take the heat from the AA community for acquittal. She doesn't want them turning up at her house demanding answers.

If you're saying that the total number of possible racists in this thread leans toward the ZImmerman camp based on equal rates of racism on each side but more Zimmerman supporters being on the boards because the Martin defenders won't come back to the threads once the relevant facts of the case were revealed, i'd say you were statistically correct.

That's exactly what I was saying.

however, i'd say that in the beginning, the pro-trayvon folks were basing the whole trial on race and therefor showed a greater degree of possible racism.

It was certainly odd (and continues to be) how so many people can ignore reality to insist on their "a white guy killed a black guy, 'cause racism!" narrative. Outright bizarre. How invested in hating white people do you have to be to hate people you incorrectly think are white and wish for their suffering? Creepy.

Cletus C.:Zimmerman playing Paul Blart is, was and always will be the problem. Without that asshattery a person isn't dead and another on trial. Farking dumbass.

Haven't you ever seen an "uplifting" news report, or movie or story where the citizens of a rough neighborhood "take back" their streets from the thugs/ prostitutes/ gang-bangers/ hoods? At some point in every one of these offerings, there is an early climactic moment where a confrontation occurs. Usually multiple confrontations. Early in the story, the confrontation goes in favor of the antagonist(s) of the story. And, the "turning point" involves the confrontation going in favor of the people trying to "take back their streets." Well, this is no different. This country is built upon the foundational principle that we as citizens, bear the personal right (and responsibility) of seeing to the protection of our selves, our neighbors, and our neighborhoods.

What's really on trial here is the continued viability of using "Angry Black Man Syndrome" as a mitigating factor in anti-social behavior. Zimmerman observed Martin coming out of a neighbor's back yard, dressed in clothing which obscured him enough to prevent positive identification, so he followed Martin, and summoned the authorities. Nowhere here is antisocial behavior displayed. Martin, on the other hand, led Zimmerman into a secluded area, where the confrontation and altercation took place. Martin was not only taller than Zimmerman, he was also a football player. One does not become a football player by displaying traits tending towards passivity. The testimony of Martin's "friend" clearly demonstrates the antisocial, racist mindset of his clique.

Ironically, Obama claims that Martin "could have been his son". If Martin was Obama's son, Obama would never have been elected President. The "Creepy-ass Cracker" mentality would have instantly doomed him from the start.

ChaosStar:As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.Not my opinion, that's the law.

And this is why the prosecution called the ME who had never seen the injuries in person but only in photographs to testify. She kind of made her own testimony suspect when she was asked by the defense if a person bleeding from a broken and bleeding nose might swallow their own blood. She hemmed and hawed around that for a minute or two. Anyone who has ever had a bloody nose (not even broken) knows that you might swallow the blood just like everyone knows that having the sniffles means that your going to swallow some snot. There was absolutely no reason to say anything but yes to that question. I think that she didn't want to give the defense anything that she didn't know where it was going to lead up to ahead of time. In other words she was in the tank for the prosecution, which makes sense seeing as she is apparently a friend of the special prosecutor who decided that this case was going forward with Murder 2 no matter what, to the extent that she didn't convene a Grand Jury which is the normal thing to do.

Hmmm.A black J4T woman on the panel of the Dr. Drew Show on Call show just called another woman on the panel (who is also black), an Oreo simply because she disagreed with her, then essentially immediately followed that up by calling her an Uncle Tom (she's doing it to get into favor with "Them").

And yet the J4T people claim that all of the racism is in the Zimmerman camp and that they are not at all racist. It's becoming quite obvious that the opposite is true. Think carefully whom you align yourselves with J4T people, because at the end of this, no matter which side wins you will have shown that you have already aligned yourselves with overt racists who seem to have no problem using racial epithets not only against white people (or people who they think are white) but also against people of their own race who disagree with them on a television show that is broadcast nationally.

None of this is going to help your claim that white people are the racist ones here and it may even hurt it in the eyes of the public when you raise it up again, which I am absolutely positive that you will because for whatever reason you think that playing the race card as often as you can will get you somewhere (where that is I have no idea).

Now to be fair Dr Drew shut that exchange down quickly and elicited an apology from the woman who said those things right after the commercial break but one of your own has let the curtain slip from the J4T agenda.

TheWhoppah:So a weak, fat out of shape wimp decides to follow a suspicious guy at night that appears to be high on drugs... and he knows the cops are coming but he gets out of the vehicle anyway to get a closer look, at night... a closer look at the asshole on drugs that is always getting away with it. Is this the Chewbaca defense?

If you'd bother to follow the trial, it's come out that Zimmerman was only outside of his vehicle to find a physical address. The cops needed an address. Now, that's only according to Zimmerman but as he did a video walk-through, his location within the complex and the visible lack of addresses on the backs of the apartment buildings make his story plausible. But it's still good to see Sharpton shills still out in full force. How much is he paying you, if I might ask?

Nobody won. A young man is dead, and Zimmerman's life will never be the same. It's hard to call him a winner in all of this. Plus unless he's a sociopath, he's probably feeling a lot of guilt. I certainly would be.

TheWhoppah:I'm sorry but a pussy wimp girly-man is not going to be getting out of his car to observe a suspicious person in the dark unless he is packing heat and are willing to use it.If you can't see this then you are so far up GZ's ass that you only see confirmation bias.

Everything you've described here is 100% legal.

It's legal to carry a gun.

It's legal to be suspicious of people (even black people).

It's legal to observe and report people to the police.

It's legal to follow people to better observe and report them.

It's legal to be willing to use lethal force.

It's even legal to use lethal force against people who are beating on you.

DROxINxTHExWIND:I guess you're just celebrating the fact that this happened in Florida and no Jews were involved?

Better than celebrating this because a black person was involved like some try-hard race baiting trolls around here, such as yourself. Put the cards away, race isn't an issue here. Or are you just attempting to piss off a mod enough to delete your posts, so you can cry about that too, even ask to be banned and then talk about running off to youtube as if it's a threat and not something most of us would welcome, your complete absence.

Was nice there, for a couple days we didn't have you in these threads.

The MMA instructor just put the nail in GZ's coffin...If GZ is so fat and bad at fighting, why would he confront a stranger on the sidewalk at night... unless he started the confrontation intending to use the weapon?

The only accounts of who confronted whom both agree Martin confronted Zimmerman.

Following someone in a vehicle and then getting out to follow them on foot is not something a helpless lame fat person would do unless perhaps they were emboldened by a weapon.

You plan on farking that chicken all the way to completion, aren't you?

Read the 911 transcript. Zimmerman had no intent to shoot anyone, he was reporting someone suspicious. Trayvon made it a physical confrontation.

TheWhoppah:The MMA instructor just put the nail in GZ's coffin...If GZ is so fat and bad at fighting, why would he confront a stranger on the sidewalk at night... unless he started the confrontation intending to use the weapon?QED

He didn't, if you have been paying attention, TM confronted GZ. GZ was observing, not confronting.

DROxINxTHExWIND:Raiden333: I have to admit, before the trial I was 100% on Team <b>Treyvon</b>, but every day of this sways me more and more to Not Guilty. Doesn't help that the prosecution is godawful at this.

The fact that you spelled his name wrong makes me totally believe that you were on his "team".

Deucednuisance:Ace Rimmer: Umm... affirmative defense means you are saying "Yes, I did it, but here's why it isn't a crime"

How is that functionally any different than what I said?

"Here's why is isn't a crime"... "because this is what actually happened".

If you're you're going to claim the former, you kinda have to do the latter.

And the claim itself is insufficient:

"Yes, I shot that man, but it wasn't a crime because a giant rabid gorilla was charging at me, so I fired at it, but it leaped into the clouds, sprouted leathery wings and flew away, so my shot went awry" would demand some sort of proof, would it not?

I'm stunned by your insistence on doubling down on your stupidity. Even on Fark, you're a rare bird.

I gave you a legal citation. It's called Montijo. It's not only recent and on point, it's the appellate district for Seminole County.

You responded with Wikipedia and Angela Corey's press conference.

Even after all of these threads, where jackass after jackass boldly pronounces legalisms that are utterly, exactly wrong, you are actually the first one who has decided to take your ignorance to the next level. You've gone from being wrong to aggressively, actively wrong.

A claim of self-defense must be disproven by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt.

I can't make you go read Montijo. I can only hope to convince you that you are seriously uninformed if you don't.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Cletus C.: Boojum2k: siva: because it is readily apparent that Trayvon Martin wouldn't have died if Zimmerman had acted with a small bit of restraint and common decency.

He should totally have let Trayvon beat him to death, that would have been the decent thing to do.

You think if Zimmerman had left it with the cops after calling them, Martin then would have followed him to his home and beaten him to death as Georgie Boy was sitting down for his evening constitutional?

I like how Zimmerman is the one who "acted without restraint", not the guy who attacked him for no reason.

Exactly. Following and reporting to police is outrageous but ambushing someone and beating their head against a concrete sidewalk is rational. Do these people really think like this?

mayIFark:Have not followed the case for half a week or so (too much BBQ, you know). I come back to more or less the same things going back and forth. So, let me get a few things clear for both sides

1. There is no independent source to verify that TM was actually acting suspicious. He may have been walking as fast as possible without looking at anything. There is no way to know. The time stamp from 7-Eleven does not say anything either. He may waited someone for the rain to slow down, or talk to someone or whatever. Simply, there is nothing to show one way or another that he was acting suspicious.

2. For either group, whatever the court verdict is, that is what justice, for of them. If you are saying we want justice for TM/GZ and therefore we want him convicted/not convicted, you are contradicting yourself. You may say, you don't agree with the law then, but that is what still considered justice.

3. With his "insignificant" injury, less than a minute long fight with a guy 40lb lighter than he is, there is nothing to prove that his life was ever in danger. You may say, that is what he felt, but if I just look at a big black guy in a dark alley, and feel my life is in danger, that is my problem, not the other guy's.

4. There are more than one way to start a fight than physically throwing the first punch.

5. Martin acted stupidly. Was it because he was high, or it came natural, does not matter.

6. When a dispatcher said, we don't need you to do that, is in their jargon, do not do it. Because he is not the boss of GZ, he could not directly say that. That may not be illegal, but sure as hell stupid.

TP, I'mma lay it on the line, You seem like a decent person by and large, if a reflexively conservative one poltically. but on this subject your views are colored by bias. You, and a half a dozen of the most vocal Zimmerman defenders on this thread are, whether you realize it or not, stone cold racists, and your worldview is so warped you don't even realize it.

Dude, this goes both ways. I've never talked about Martin's pictures of guns, called him a thug, or mentioned his drug-use save to assert it doesn't mean anything. And there have been people telling me that literally the only reason I think Zimmerman should walk is because I "secretly want to kill black people."

ELKAY:jaybeezey: ELKAY: I really hope GZ doesn't get off. The last thing we need in this country is a bunch of a$$hole vigilante's thinking they now have a hunting license for black teenagers.

He clearly did not act as a reasonable or responsible person that night and deserves a manslaughter charge.

Right? Because it's such a prevalent attitude now. I'd hate for it to get bolstered.

Most everyone i know is just chomping at the bit to have his/her life turned inside out on national TV so they can smoke some kid.

Don't live in fear and hate and everything will be OK.

Would you feels safe if George Zimmerman lived in your neighborhood?

Would you feel safe if a George Zimmerman wannabe lived in your neighborhood?

I wouldn't. I think this man with past assault charges and domestic violence charges who has now killed a teenager under questionable circumstances should not be allowed to own a fire arm.

He clearly acted with reckless disregard for human life, he is a proven liar, his story from that night does not add up, and while there is not enough evidence for murder I think manslaughter is a slam dunk. I hope the jury has that option.

1. I wouldn't feel unsafe.2. I wouldn't feel unsafe.3. Domestic violence charges were debunked a long time ago, and were cleared up in this case by his lawyer4. How did Zimmerman act with reckless disregard for human life? That's what Trayvon Martin did when he assaulted Zimmerman for no reason. Zimmerman's story not only adds up perfectly, but is currently supported by all available evidence and witnesses. Not only is there absolutely no chance at a murder conviction, manslaughter is totally off the table as well because self defense is an absolute legal defense.

Mr_Fabulous:If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

Wrong. If hypothetical "white kid" had beaten the black guy into the concrete, and was shot in self-defense, you'd find pretty much the same people here defending him for it.

The people projecting racism into this case are the ones with the strongest dose of it.

Mr_Fabulous:I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

You're projecting your racism onto us. If the teen attacks, it's his fault he gets shot. Stop making this about race, this is about law.

I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

Xenomech:The cognitive dissonance in these Zimmerman threads is astounding.

If Zimmerman didn't want to be put into a position where he'd have to use deadly force to protect himself from an attack, then he shouldn't have been investigating a suspicious person in his neighborhood while armed. And if a woman didn't want to be put into a position where she'd be raped, then she should not be walking around sketchy areas while wearing skimpy clothing. Right?

Haven't you ever seen an "uplifting" news report, or movie or story where the citizens of a rough neighborhood "take back" their streets from the thugs/ prostitutes/ gang-bangers/ hoods? At some point in every one of these offerings, there is an early climactic moment where a confrontation occurs. Usually multiple confrontations. Early in the story, the confrontation goes in favor of the antagonist(s) of the story. And, the "turning point" involves the confrontation going in favor of the people trying to "take back their streets." Well, this is no different. This country is built upon the foundational principle that we as citizens, bear the personal right (and responsibility) of seeing to the protection of our selves, our neighbors, and our neighborhoods.

As a black kid in the 70s and 80s, the movies I remember were about the young black kid who was out trying to do the right thing. The turning point in those movies is when the kid gets killed by people who believe themselves to be authorities because the he fit the description. (See: "Cornbread, Earl and Me"). In these movies, the black underclass, finally tired of being the victims of criminals and the police, rise up and defend themselves against the police state in the ghettos of America. Well, this is no different. No longer will black people accept that we all should be treated like criminals because there are black people who commit crimes. The original issue here was that the initial decision not to charge George Zimmerman based on his own recounting of the events leading to the death of a 17 year old seemed to be out of line with how police normally treat these cases. Now, the issue for myself is how ready many non-minorities are to let a man go free based on the criminal behavior of OTHER black people. The defense seems to be saying, "well, there have been break-ins by black people, so any person would be well within their rights to approach and questionany black person at any time to determine wether they "belong" there. Sadly, the people advocating this criminal treatment of citizens by other citizens cannot imagine a scenerio where THEY are asked if they belong. I'm sure they would be as accepting if they went to an inner city and they were followed and questioned by a resident.

What's really on trial here is the continued viability of using "Angry Black Man Syndrome" as a mitigating factor in anti-social behavior. Zimmerman observed Martin coming out of a neighbor's back yard, dressed in clothing which obscured him enough to prevent positive identification, so he followed Martin, and summoned the authorities. Nowhere here is antisocial behavior displayed. Martin, on the other hand, led Zimmerman into a secluded area, where the confrontation and altercation took place. Martin was not only taller than Zimmerman, he was also a football player. One does not become a football player by displaying traits tending towards passivity. The testimony of Martin's "friend" clearly demonstrates the antisocial, racist mindset of his clique.</i>

No, what's really on trial here is the ability for non-minorities to use the "Angry Black Man Syndrome" as an explanation for why they took some action against a black man. Even at 17 years old, they're so scary and blood thirsty that following one of them on a dark and rainy night with a gun, first in a vehicle and then on foot (a totally innocent action), will get you killed. So, starting an altercation with a black man which results in his death is totally justifiable because common knowledge suggests that even an unarmed black kid who was going about his business will kill you, if given a chance. Hey blacks, don't forget to keep your hood off in the rain, unless you want to be mistaken for an intruder. Smh.

limeyfellow:AeAe: nekom: LasersHurt:Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good. A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died. It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.

not murder. manslaughter.

What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman admitted to following the guy in a car for a number of blocks, then when he sees an appropiate time he jumps out and goes after the kid with no sort of announcement of intent, he enters the personal space of Trayvon Martin to confront himself. If Martin had been older and shot Zimmerman and survive the case would have been thrown out as self defense, especially with the phone calls that Zimmerman made that he is after the kid.

Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?

None of what Zimmerman did constitutes a need for self defense. Being followed or asking someone a question (which is what Zimmerman did) did not give Martin the right or legal option to assualt Zimmerman. Especially if you take into account that Martin may have looped back around to confront Zimmerman, the idea that Zimmerman was stalking the kid doesn't meat the muster of "fearing for his life."

Now if Zimmerman was beating the kid within an inch of his life with a baton, or slamming his head into a light pole or (in this case concrete) and Martin shot Zimmerman, he could claim self defense. As the evidence is presented here, however, Martin confronted Zimmerman, a fight broke out, and martin was slamming Zimmermans head into the concrete. That is self defense.

IdBeCrazyIf:ChaosStar: Yes, fights do happen, but when one person moves the fight from assault and/or battery to attempted murder, responsibilities for being in that fight have no bearing on the ensuing defense of life.

Never been in a fight have you?

Things escalate quickly, but just because they do...that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with.

You seem to believe that under florida law, a precursor to self defense is not putting oneself in a position of possible trauma/fighting. Youd be wrong on this fact, yet you believe it.

ChaosStar:What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.None of it. At all. Period.Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.Not my opinion, that's the law.

Somehow I doubt that if treyvon had killed zimmerman if zimmermans gun had misfired that you would be in all these threads rabidly attacking anyone saying treyvon was guilty.

What you also leave out is that it is up to the jury to decide whether one person's actions rise to a level justifying lethal force. You cannot simply say 'hurr I thought he'd kill me' and you definitely cannot expect the jury to ignore a little thing like how you were running around playing cop for fun in the first place.

And by the way, you have serious ignorance about what justifies lethal force. Nobody gets to go around punching people in the face and then murder the person who is too good at defending themselves. Is concrete lethal force? Sure.Depending on the situation, so is the angry guy stalking you at night, being racist, and physically assaulting you. That is what this trial is about.

If I was out for a walk and you started beating me up, I would be justified in slipping a knife in you. You would not be justified in shooting me as I pulled it. I am under no obligation to presume you are only going to hurt me in a manner other than serious bodily harm, nor to trust that those couple mma matches I watched will let me fend you off.

way south:Was it my imagination, or did the good doctor mention that Trayvon was able to fight a heart wound because of all the drugs in his system?Wasn't that on the list of things they weren't supposed to bring up?

/how much weed does that even take?/"trace ammounts" my arse.

Did you hear the ruling the judge gave when Bao said his opinion changed on whether or not the amount of THC in Martin's system may have effected his behavior?

Even the CNN commentator said that would likely be reversible error.

This is a poor example of the administration of justice, and everybody is watching.

limeyfellow:AeAe: nekom: LasersHurt:Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good. A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died. It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.

not murder. manslaughter.

What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman admitted to following the guy in a car for a number of blocks, then when he sees an appropiate time he jumps out and goes after the kid with no sort of announcement of intent, he enters the personal space of Trayvon Martin to confront himself. If Martin had been older and shot Zimmerman and survive the case would have been thrown out as self defense, especially with the phone calls that Zimmerman made that he is after the kid.

Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?

Stand your ground could protect Martin if he were on trial for assault, manslaughter, murder, etc. BHe'd have to prove it, but he's not on trial so it's completely irrelevant. He'd very possibly lose on that. Zimerman doesn't lose the right to self defense, especially when there's no compelling argument he started the physical altercation. What you seem to be advocating is a situation where one person gets to declare "I stand my ground!" at the slightest provocation and then the other person is compelled to lie back and take a beating.

ChaosStar:What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.None of it. At all. Period.Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.Not my opinion, that's the law.

Zimmerman playing Paul Blart is, was and always will be the problem. Without that asshattery a person isn't dead and another on trial. Farking dumbass.

Hobodeluxe:Mid_mo_mad_man: The only thing tragic is the railroading of Zimmerman. Martin is the one to blame for his death. His actions led to his own death.

yeah walking home from the store talking to a girl is illegal. he didn't have a right to defend himself from a stalker in the dark who never identified himself.a man who's word we're supposed to take as gospel. a known liar with a violent past that should have made him ineligible to license a firearm. a hot head who lost his job as a bouncer because he had anger management and is a recovering alcoholic. who's story sounds like a Dirty Harry movie with the strained dialogue. Who was negligent in his watch captain's training and duties.

Following does not equal stalking nor is an aggressive act or even illegal. The girl he was talking plus a neighbor make it clear that Martin was an angry bigot that wanted to beat the cracker following him. And we all know of Martins past violent acts. This case shouldn't have came to trail

Popcorn Johnny:I don't think GZ is guilty of manslaughter, but it might not be a bad idea if he was convicted of it and sent to prison for a few years. It would send a strong message to people that you really want to do everything possible to avoid violent confrontations with people. If he walks, I guarantee you see a lot more of these kind of incidents in the future.

It sounds like you are suggesting we become a nation of cowards. I fully expect people charged with monitoring my community, be they cops or neighborhood watch, investigate suspicious behavior. 999,999 times out of a million, nothing horrible comes of it, but sometimes it does. Such is life. We all meet our fate one way or another and some of us will die in violent confrontations.

What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.None of it. At all. Period.Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.Not my opinion, that's the law.

Popcorn Johnny:I don't think GZ is guilty of manslaughter, but it might not be a bad idea if he was convicted of it and sent to prison for a few years. It would send a strong message to people that you really want to do everything possible to avoid violent confrontations with people. If he walks, I guarantee you see a lot more of these kind of incidents in the future.

I doubt it. Who wants to be:

1. Put into the poorhouse by defense costs (GZ got donations, but would you?)2. Be essentially unemployable for years, if it's a public trial.3. Always have to look over your shoulder.4. Worry, in some states, about permanently being beholden to the family of the person you shot, because they sued your ass and won, even though you were acquitted in criminal court.

He brazenly put himself in that situation which lead to the death of a person.through culpable negligence

Manslaughter

Would a reasonable person expect to be assaulted violently for walking in the same direction as someone else? If the answer to that is yes, then you live in a sad world and you can argue manslaughter. If the answer to that is no, then it's self-defense and not manslaughter.

Remember, the prosecution showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

I don't think GZ is guilty of manslaughter, but it might not be a bad idea if he was convicted of it and sent to prison for a few years. It would send a strong message to people that you really want to do everything possible to avoid violent confrontations with people. If he walks, I guarantee you see a lot more of these kind of incidents in the future.

QueenMamaBee:stellarossa: Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

Plus judge wants the jury to take the heat from the AA community for acquittal. She doesn't want them turning up at her house demanding answers.

I can see where my mind is headed.... I took that as Alcoholics Anonymous.

/not caffinated enough this morning

It looks like he'll walk. Maybe the judge will declare a mistrial, but I doubt it.

Honestly, this is a case of poor prosecution. Negligent homicide would have been easy to prove -his pursuit of Martin pretty much clinches that- but they got greedy and went straight for murder even though they couldn't prove malice aforethought. That wasn't a wise tactical decision, and they never really recovered from it.

And that, my friends, is the ultimate lesson to take away from cases like this: if you want any semblance of justice, the charge must stick, and you're not going to get a second chance at that. Go only for what you can prove. If this means using words that don't mesh so well with your definition of what happened, then so be it: save your words for outside the court.

Mid_mo_mad_man:The only thing tragic is the railroading of Zimmerman. Martin is the one to blame for his death. His actions led to his own death.

yeah walking home from the store talking to a girl is illegal. he didn't have a right to defend himself from a stalker in the dark who never identified himself.a man who's word we're supposed to take as gospel. a known liar with a violent past that should have made him ineligible to license a firearm. a hot head who lost his job as a bouncer because he had anger management and is a recovering alcoholic. who's story sounds like a Dirty Harry movie with the strained dialogue. Who was negligent in his watch captain's training and duties.

While I don't feel any laws were broken and Martin earned his death, it's still a loss when a 17 year old kid is so farked up they need to be put down.

If society had a place for violent young thugs to get out of that life one step at a time, instead of just kicked out of regular people school, we might have caught him and people like him before shiat like this goes down. If Martin hadn't been suspended from school it would have been better for Zimmerman, better for Martin, better for everyone.

When citizens kill each other instead of helping expand prosperity, it's always a tragedy.

IdBeCrazyIf:Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

As much as I think the guy is guilty as hell of manslaughter, I did laugh when I saw that shiat.

It's like....yYou do realize people that this is standard operating procedure for defense teams right?

Yes, but it was warranted here. This judge has been brazenly pro-prosecution from the jump, so Zimmerman's lawyers are just creating a record for appeal if the jury flakes out and convicts because they are afraid of the lynch mob surrounding this whole thing.

stellarossa:Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

Plus judge wants the jury to take the heat from the AA community for acquittal. She doesn't want them turning up at her house demanding answers.

So we're both surprised that the Prosecution/Martin camp still maintains their side of the argument? Because we're scared of black people?

Thai_Mai_Xhu:Mr_Fabulous: I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

ONE.

dude, an athletic young white man is perfectly capable of banging an older out of shape black neighborhood watchman's head on the sidewalk, and an older black neighborhood watchman would have every right to defend himself with deadly force.More white people would back the black guy in your hypothetical than blacks back Zimmy.Lots more.My white cousins are sometimes known to make a racial joke, and even when they manage to insult some distant piece of my genetic make-up I don't even feel bad about it.Take it from your friendly neighborhood Chinese Redneck Jew; racism against blacks only works anymore if the perps were wearing full Klan regalia.

Make it two. If a black man were attacked and defended himself against a white punk under similar circumstances, my tune would not change.

ELKAY:Except its been established that he did not need to walk as far as he did to see the address since they are plainly written on the side of the houses, something Zimmerman knew because he lived there. Clearly he was doing something else besides checking addresses.

He stated that he couldn't remember the street name that those addresses were tied to at the time and that there were no street signs (which was true and can be seen in the walk through video) to go by. It's kinda useless to say well, it's 1234 of a street I can't give you the name of right now. What he did know was that the other street, across the top of the "T", was his street so if he can spot an address there he can give that to the police when they call him back. He had already told the dispatcher that Martin was heading in the general direction of the back entrance (which leads right onto his street) so it's reasonable to think that that will be probably where the police will first be heading to which would also get them there on scene (the top of the "T" where Martin was last seen) the fastest.

The prosecutor was being intentionally misleading IMO when he said that and I hope that the jury took note of that because they had already recently viewed the walk through video where Zimmerman is on scene and giving his version of events to the police the very next day.

Here's the video by the way..an unedited one(except slowed). I saw several where it was pretty obviously cut out.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/surveillance-video-shows-trayvon-mart in -at-7-eleven-on-night-of-shooting/

I've heard the claim that it was, in fact, Arizona Watermelon Cooler made many times. From what I can tell in that video it IS a Watermelon Cooler, round red object on the bottom of the can.I don't even need to ask why they keep calling it iced tea.

Southern100:Sounded to me like he just wanted to see how many times he could say the N-word in 2 minutes.

Some do. It's been years, but when I was in college, I worked as a security guard. The group of young black men who robbed the hotel I was guarding thought I was very attractive and successful, if a little confused as to my ethnic/national origins, and repeatedly told me so./Guard position was unarmed and an insurance thing, like most hotels.//Still, managed to identify all of them, and all were convicted

ELKAY:Except its been established that he did not need to walk as far as he did to see the address since they are plainly written on the side of the houses, something Zimmerman knew because he lived there.

MagSeven:Popcorn Johnny: Mi-5: If I were Zimmerman's defense, I would probably think twice about getting the toxicology report in. It could be shown to not help their case. If the jury, based on their own experiences, decides that being high would have made TM mellow, not aggressive, then GZ's self defense claim begins to become less tenable.

What the marijuana use shows is that Trayvon wasn't the sweet little angel that his family and prosecutors are trying to make him out to be. That's what's going to stick with the jury more than anything, especially since they're all women who probably believe that their own kids would never smoke weed.

Believe it or not, marijuana isn't quite as stigmatized as it used to be. Perhaps even the jurors themselves have at one time or another indulged in this "demon weed". If they haven't they probably know someone who has as I assume all of them went to high school at one time.

Unless Martin was on something a little "harder" this trace amount of weed is completely irrelevant to me. Weed isn't going to make Martin attack. Fear or merely simple aggression/teenage invincible tough guy syndrome would though.

I don't think the defense is going to argue that weed may Martin attack.

What they will argue in closing, however, is that the statement "this guy looks like he's on drugs" was a factual statement, no evidence of Zimmerman racially profiling Martin.

Popcorn Johnny:Mi-5: If I were Zimmerman's defense, I would probably think twice about getting the toxicology report in. It could be shown to not help their case. If the jury, based on their own experiences, decides that being high would have made TM mellow, not aggressive, then GZ's self defense claim begins to become less tenable.

What the marijuana use shows is that Trayvon wasn't the sweet little angel that his family and prosecutors are trying to make him out to be. That's what's going to stick with the jury more than anything, especially since they're all women who probably believe that their own kids would never smoke weed.

Believe it or not, marijuana isn't quite as stigmatized as it used to be. Perhaps even the jurors themselves have at one time or another indulged in this "demon weed". If they haven't they probably know someone who has as I assume all of them went to high school at one time.

Unless Martin was on something a little "harder" this trace amount of weed is completely irrelevant to me. Weed isn't going to make Martin attack. Fear or merely simple aggression/teenage invincible tough guy syndrome would though.

For the record, I don't really think the fox screen was relevant to who started the fight and/or any aggression Martin might have had. I support legalization, and think its a relatively harmless drug compared to alcohol.

BUT, it does buttress the "it looks like he's on drugs" statement of Zimmerman's as a statement with basis in fact, not as a statement backed on racial profiling. Just as a statement "this guy looks drunk" would have been relevant if Martin's toxicology report showed alcohol.

And, at the end of the day, it was the prosecutions own witness who opened this door with his testimony, so it should be allowed under that principle alone.

nekom:creepy ass-cracka:I know that pot affects people in differently, and usually wouldn't make someone more aggressive. But, here, the jury has heard a recording of George saying that the kid looked like he was on drugs so, if the kid really was on drugs allowing the tox report shows that Zim wasn't just picking on this kid b/c he was "walking while black" or whatever.

I suppose it speaks to his credibility, I just don't see pot as a big deal. Traces of cocaine MAYBE, but it's not really clear from what they're saying exactly how much a "trace" is. Weed, hell alcohol is worse than that. A drunk driver will run a stop sign. A stoned driver will sit there and wait for it to turn green.

It is just a way to introduce some doubts. How does the testimony look to the jury of everyone who claims to have known Martin well and he NEVER took drugs. If they can show Martin used them then how well did they know him after all? Also implies Martin's judgement might have been impaired or influenced in a different manner then normal.

Cletus C.:Abuse Liability: Cletus C.: creepy ass-cracka: George said that Martin looked like he was on drugs.

Tox shows THC.

Why is this even up for debate? If the tox showed that Martin was clean, you know the prosecution would be waiving it around all over the place.

If there's one thing we know about marijuana, it's that it makes you violently aggressive. So yes, very important evidence.

Once again, not relevant. If anything, withdrawing from drugs makes you irritable if you're going to beat that overworked cliche.

People suffer withdrawal from pot? I'm learning a lot about marijuana here.

I know you're attempting to be a smartass, but yes, Marijuana - as well as anything that affects pleasure receptors - can cause somewhat severe psychological withdrawals. The W/Ds aren't the same as say, an opiate withdrawal, where you will have physical contributions to the overall package, but you still have the mental portion.

Seeing as how aggression, paranoia, etc. (though I in no way believe this was related to withdrawals, or is an issue of marijuana making Trayvon violent) are PSYCHOLOGICAL factors, this is again, highly relevant.

However, I don't believe the defense is at all going for this to establish a predisposition to aggression - I believe they are using it to show that Zimerman was not inaccurate in his statement that Martin appeared to be on drugs, and to defend from the accusation of prejudice. I also believe it serves a secondary purpose as establishing Martin's character (not saying weed makes someone a bad person - lord knows I've done tons of drugs and am in no way against them - however, the whole thug thing and drug usage tend to go hand-in-hand even though it is not a definite).

Abuse Liability:creepy ass-cracka: George said that Martin looked like he was on drugs.

Tox shows THC.

Why is this even up for debate? If the tox showed that Martin was clean, you know the prosecution would be waiving it around all over the place.

The levels of THC found in his blood were about 1.5 ng/ml. This means its had probably been anywhere from 3-12 hours since he had smoked last (depending on the size of the joint and THC content) and was not intoxicated at the time of the incident. The drug thing needs to be dropped like the racism shtick. It's not relevant. Kids do drugs, but drugs aren't solely responsible for all their stupid decisions.

The state's expert witness claimed that if Martin were an occasional user, these levels meant he had smoked within the past few hours. The ME or toxicologist corrected his statement to state that Martin WOULD have likely been impaired to some extent at these levels.

That combined with Martin swaying at the counter of 7-11 (if you haven't seen the video, watch it - it's a blatant lie for the prosecution to claim he wasn't) and George Zimmerman's statement that Trayvon "looked like he was on drugs" (while his group of statements including that is being used to show a racial prejudice against Trayvon) makes this information highly relevant. For someone to not see that is absurd.

The THC shows that Z was probably correct in his judgement that M looked like he was on drugs. If the tox report showed that there were no drugs, the state would bring this up and say that Z was profiling. Since there is THC present, the defense should be able to use this info to show that Z was correct.

Tatsuma:I will say this, listening to a father talking about how he learned he lost his son is pretty damn sad.

Maybe he should have known where his kid was. Hell until I joined the Army at 18 I was required to let my folks know where I was and aprox when I would be back. How people let their kids just roam at night is crazy.

nekom:Elegy: Aguing now about removing the motion of limiting and allowing the toxicology reports on Martin to be heard by the jury.

I don't really see how that's relevant, but then I didn't think Zimmerman's college courses were either. Martin smoked pot. Big deal. So did I at his age. Non-story on that one.

I know that pot affects people in differently, and usually wouldn't make someone more aggressive. But, here, the jury has heard a recording of George saying that the kid looked like he was on drugs so, if the kid really was on drugs allowing the tox report shows that Zim wasn't just picking on this kid b/c he was "walking while black" or whatever.

I still want to know what happened to TM's GPS info. They have detailed records from his phone for every day except the day of the shooting? The prosecution had possession of the phone, sent it to a California crime lab, refused to share that data last I knew, then had it sent to another retrieval service for the defense and suddenly the one last day of data is missing? Computers don't work like that! Someone in the prosecution needs to go to jail for destruction of evidence.

Mr_Fabulous:I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

I think alot of that would depend on whether or not the black man had the shiat beat out of him in the process.

Elegy:Man, BDLR is really turning on the skeezy emotional schmaltz in cross.

I do feel bad for Tracy Martin, hard to lose a kid.

I feel sorry for Martin's parents as well. If I were them though, I would probably outraged at this point for what the prosecutors and their ilk have put them through. Even they have to see that there is no case here.

HAMMERTOE:Cletus C.: Zimmerman playing Paul Blart is, was and always will be the problem. Without that asshattery a person isn't dead and another on trial. Farking dumbass.

Haven't you ever seen an "uplifting" news report, or movie or story where the citizens of a rough neighborhood "take back" their streets from the thugs/ prostitutes/ gang-bangers/ hoods? At some point in every one of these offerings, there is an early climactic moment where a confrontation occurs. Usually multiple confrontations. Early in the story, the confrontation goes in favor of the antagonist(s) of the story. And, the "turning point" involves the confrontation going in favor of the people trying to "take back their streets." Well, this is no different. This country is built upon the foundational principle that we as citizens, bear the personal right (and responsibility) of seeing to the protection of our selves, our neighbors, and our neighborhoods.

What's really on trial here is the continued viability of using "Angry Black Man Syndrome" as a mitigating factor in anti-social behavior. Zimmerman observed Martin coming out of a neighbor's back yard, dressed in clothing which obscured him enough to prevent positive identification, so he followed Martin, and summoned the authorities. Nowhere here is antisocial behavior displayed. Martin, on the other hand, led Zimmerman into a secluded area, where the confrontation and altercation took place. Martin was not only taller than Zimmerman, he was also a football player. One does not become a football player by displaying traits tending towards passivity. The testimony of Martin's "friend" clearly demonstrates the antisocial, racist mindset of his clique.

Ironically, Obama claims that Martin "could have been his son". If Martin was Obama's son, Obama would never have been elected President. The "Creepy-ass Cracker" mentality would have instantly doomed him from the start.

Viewing reality through the lens of revenge movies? You're either a farking idiot, a troll or both. Given the nonsensical second paragraph, I'm leaning towards the latter but if it's the former, go back to jerking off to Death Wish and leave the grown ups alone.

DROxINxTHExWIND:Meh. The guy is selling the idea that he was invested in the case. If he truly was, there were no shortage of media outlets where his name was spelled. I'm not sure how he missed all of them.

Dude, many times I ended up writing Barak Obama instead of Barack Obama. That's because there's also a guy called Ehud Barak even though I know fully well who Obama is. I am not used to the spelling 'Barack' but I am used to Barak. Sometimes, when people are presented with alternate versions of names, or straight up names, that they are not used to, they sometimes will err when it comes to spelling them

DROxINxTHExWIND:Just an observation, but you seem to be awfully giddy about your perception that the defense is winning the case. Normally, you at least act like a disinterested bystander, even when your words betray you. You're out in front of this one, though. I guess you're just celebrating the fact that this happened in Florida and no Jews were involved?

I am happy that the defense is winning because all of the evidence out there points to Zimmerman killing him in self-defense, and I'm happy that it looks like he will be released rather than convicted due to a witch hunt.

TheWhoppah:I'm sorry but a pussy wimp girly-man is not going to be getting out of his car to observe a suspicious person in the dark unless he is packing heat and are willing to use it.If you can't see this then you are so far up GZ's ass that you only see confirmation bias.

TheWhoppah:I'm sorry but a pussy wimp girly-man is not going to be getting out of his car to observe a suspicious person in the dark unless he is packing heat and are willing to use it.If you can't see this then you are so far up GZ's ass that you only see confirmation bias.

Yeah, no expereinced neighborhood watch person would get out of thier car in their own neoghborhood to keeps tabs on the location of someone acting suspicious when there has been a history of robberies in the exact area in question.

Tatsuma:DROxINxTHExWIND: The fact that you spelled his name wrong makes me totally believe that you were on his "team".

With as much evidence to disprove what he said, no wonder you think Zimmerman is guilty.

Meh. The guy is selling the idea that he was invested in the case. If he truly was, there were no shortage of media outlets where his name was spelled. I'm not sure how he missed all of them.

Just an observation, but you seem to be awfully giddy about your perception that the defense is winning the case. Normally, you at least act like a disinterested bystander, even when your words betray you. You're out in front of this one, though. I guess you're just celebrating the fact that this happened in Florida and no Jews were involved?

TheWhoppah:The MMA instructor just put the nail in GZ's coffin...If GZ is so fat and bad at fighting, why would he confront a stranger on the sidewalk at night... unless he started the confrontation intending to use the weapon?QED

The MMA instructor just put the nail in GZ's coffin...If GZ is so fat and bad at fighting, why would he confront a stranger on the sidewalk at night... unless he started the confrontation intending to use the weapon?

The only accounts of who confronted whom both agree Martin confronted Zimmerman.

DROxINxTHExWIND:...except if you're black and walking home. In that scenerio, you should respond respectfully to every question that some stranger has about whether you "belong" in your neighborhood.

It wasn't Trayvon's neighborhood. he was a visitor.

But I agree. Reverse nothing but the races, and Zimmerman is already in lockup, serving time. That also goes to Latino GZ's case. Citing how this case would be unjust if you reversed the race, and got the aforementioned conviction doesn't mean we should convict Zimmerman. It means black people should get fair trials, when they often do not.

nekom:This text is now purple:You're going to have to help out with that slavery-as-origin-of-racism angle. The Irish suffered under German racism, but I don't see much slavery having gone on to cause it.

Oh sure racism has existed pretty much since human civilization has. I just think that slavery was a key factor in it in the case of the USA. There was a time when it was common for a LOT of people to actually believe that they were less than human, inferior and not fit to live amongst us, even some who argued that slavery was to their benefit. That's why even after slavery officially ended, blacks were viewed as inferior and treated as such for many many generations. It takes a LONG time to heal those kind of wounds.

The Singing Bush:ChaosStar: o, just showing you a holstered gun does not qualify as lethal force. It certainly warrants you calling the police, because that's illegal, and getting the hell out of the situation, but legally you can't kill them for just flashing you a view of their gun.Now if they said "I'm gonna kill you The Singing Bush!" and they start reaching to lift their shirt, such as to produce a weapon, you do not have to wait for them to actually produce the weapon. You can attack them right then and there as a preventative to the felony action.You cannot, however, use lethal force even at this point, such as bashing their head into cement or beating them to where they fear they are going to die, as no actual lethal force was used against you and you have effectively neutralized the threat and taken control.

What if I wasn't using lethal force, but I was just hitting their head into cement to try to knock them unconscious? Maybe I reached for the gun and they were able to stop me from grabbing it, so my only chance to truly neutralize the threat was to knock them out. I can't do that?

Using the concrete, at all, is lethal force, period.Reaching for their gun is a threat to their life, because they don't know what you're going to do when you get it. This is what happened with the GZ case.

DROxINxTHExWIND:TheSup3rN0va: Have you really completely ruled out the possibility that Trayvon Martin was acting out the "Thug Lyfe" stereotype by trying to teach this "crazy ass cracka" a lesson? If the "script was flipped", as it were, and black gentleman Jeron Brown had shot white, wannabe thug Brayden Martin after Martin had attacked Brown either out of (a) extreme racism or (b) trying to prove he was a tough guy, I'd be advocating the innocence of Brown as well as pointing out that Braypack was a bad example instead of voraciously defending him because he's white.

I know I'm crazy for thinking you might actually be an intelligent individual who is truly concerned about the racial inequalities in our society instead of a perpetrator of racist hyperbole and "the white man be keepin' us down" nonsense.

I'll start by letting you know that your opinion of me isn't important so save yourself some time. I think that it is possible that Trayvon Martin was angry that he was being followed. I totally disagree with your idiotic, racist characterization of his anger. If YOU get angry about something are you channeling Tony Soprano or Lucky Luciano? Why isn't your anger considered being "gangster"? You can also save your hypotheticals. I don't know what you would do if the situation were different and I have no reason to believe your assertion.

That, in and of itself, is an answer; not the one I was hoping for, but, unfortunately, the one I expected.

siva:I only saw about 20 minutes of testimony from the lead investigator being examined by the defense a few days ago, so I could be wroung. However, it seemed very clear that the prosecution didn't have the kind of evidence to prove much of anything.

It's sad, because it is readily apparent that Trayvon Martin wouldn't have died if Zimmerman had acted with a small bit of restraint and common decency. However, with respect to the law, I don't think being a POS is illegal. So as it stands I can't see him being convicted, despite morally reprehensible behavior that cost a young man his life. I just hope that if he walks, this follows Zimmerman around for the rest of his life.

I am curious what behavior Mr. Zimmerman engaged in that was "morally reprehensible". Calling the police when he saw someone suspicious and reporting everything that happened as it happened?

I know a lot of people want to bank on "we don't need you to do that" as some kind of command, but tend to forget that earlier in the call, the dispatcher said "tell us if he does anything else" or something similar. So, he actually FOLLOWED that instructions of the police. He gave descriptions of the actions of the youth (admittedly there could have been more of them, but there always can). He broke off when he was told to break off. From Trayvon's friend's testamony, we find that he confronted Zimmerman. The evidence largely points to Zimmerman being struck first, repeatedly, and struggling to defend himself. When he was struck multiple times about the head (with fist and then his head impacting concrete), he was able to get his weapon and discharge a single shot that killed Trayvon.

What part was Morally Reprehensible about his actions? The outcome was TRAGIC, but providing that his actions actually conformed to what the evidence shows, what did he do that was reprehensible?

Cletus C.:Boojum2k: siva: because it is readily apparent that Trayvon Martin wouldn't have died if Zimmerman had acted with a small bit of restraint and common decency.

He should totally have let Trayvon beat him to death, that would have been the decent thing to do.

You think if Zimmerman had left it with the cops after calling them, Martin then would have followed him to his home and beaten him to death as Georgie Boy was sitting down for his evening constitutional?

Well, the prosecution has shown the Martin pursued Zimmerman and then started beating him. Why doesn't Trayvon get called out for having no restraint or decency?

Cletus C.:Boojum2k: siva: because it is readily apparent that Trayvon Martin wouldn't have died if Zimmerman had acted with a small bit of restraint and common decency.

He should totally have let Trayvon beat him to death, that would have been the decent thing to do.

You think if Zimmerman had left it with the cops after calling them, Martin then would have followed him to his home and beaten him to death as Georgie Boy was sitting down for his evening constitutional?

I like how Zimmerman is the one who "acted without restraint", not the guy who attacked him for no reason.

mayIFark:Xenomech: The cognitive dissonance in these Zimmerman threads is astounding.

If Zimmerman didn't want to be put into a position where he'd have to use deadly force to protect himself from an attack, then he shouldn't have been investigating a suspicious person in his neighborhood while armed. And if a woman didn't want to be put into a position where she'd be raped, then she should not be walking around sketchy areas while wearing skimpy clothing. Right?

Wrong, there is a slight difference: with your skimpy dress, you would also have to carry a big sign saying $20/night. And after you get your $20, file for rape.

Magorn:This is the basic truth of the matter. Most Zimmerman supporters are terrified racists, not legal analysts. I've watched this case from the beginning, and especially on the Uber-conservative sites like Free Republic, the narrative has shifted. On day one it was mostly "Jeez what an irresponsible idiot Zimmerman is, bet the libs will take away our guns because of this guy's stupidity" but slowly, as the racial angle was played up by the media, Zimmerman became a blameless saint and Martin a dark, scary, agressive "thug" who clearly had it coming.

TP, I'mma lay it on the line, You seem like a decent person by and large, if a reflexively conservative one poltically. but on this subject your views are colored by bias. You, and a half a dozen of the most vocal Zimmerman defenders on this thread are, whether you realize it or not, stone cold racists, and your worldview is so warped you don't even realize it.

So the media was the first to bring up race, forcing charges for someone who the Sanford PD and FBI found no grounds to indict, and Zimmerman supporters are the racists. Despite their being absolutely not one shred of evidence that race played any part whatsoever.

KellyX:bigpete53: KellyX: You still really consider Florida to be the "deep south"... There's a reason it's purple

Everything north of Orlando is pretty deep South. Especially when you get up to the point where you're even with the panhandle.

Somehow I don't consider Daytona Beach as "deep south" nor Jacksonville for that matter... (Palm Coast, St. Augustine, or Sanford...) I don't know the panhandle region as well, but somehow I don't think it's rapid racism like you'd find in SC or AL areas...

Florida isn't the deep south. There are some areas, like Live Oak, that are indistinguishable from rural Georgia, but no one lives in those areas. Coastal Florida (where the people live) is very cosmopolitan. Anyone suggesting that 2013 Florida is "deep south" is either an idiot, or lying for political reasons.

Mid_mo_mad_man:It's very clear Martin wasn't just walking home. A ten minute trip was taking 30+ minutes. That being said he wasn't scared or worried over the " cracker" following him. He wanted to teach him a lesson for dissing him.

I ten tend to agree. If he was really afraid he would have hidden or just out run fat Zimmerman and headed home to call the cops.

TheWhoppah:You clearly can't divorce the proffered evidence from your feelings about said evidence. Its like you can't even SEE that any evidence was presented that contradicts your opinion.No offense, but you would make alousy judge.

I can read the law.

More importantly, I can understand it.

The law says that in circumstantial-evidence cases, the prosecution's evidence must rule out the not-guilty hypotheses.

Not even the FAP Team is prepared to embarrass themselves by claiming that, in this case, the State's evidence accomplishes this task.

I get it. Due Process sticks in your craw when you have a bloodlust for a guy you really, really hate. It's a bitter pill for you. But just choke it on down, just the same.

Deucednuisance:ChaosStar: To be fair, he really doesn't have to prove he's innocent with an affirmative defense, just show evidence that the self defense was justified. Reasonable doubt can still exist.

Actually, Counselor, that's exactly backwards. "Affirmative defense" means "defense that has to be proven". Not just "justified", but "that it occurred".

A defendant claiming self-defense only needs to be able to point to some evidence that justifies his assertion of the defense. That evidence can come from anywhere -- the defendant's evidence (if he elects to present any), cross-examination of the state's witnesses, or even the inherent nature of the state's allegations.

A self-defense claimant is not required to prove anything. He merely needs to make a plausible, legitimate assertion of self-defense.

The State is required to disprove the self-defense claim, and do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

nekom:HAMMERTOE: Boojum2k: Wrong. If hypothetical "white kid" had beaten the black guy into the concrete, and was shot in self-defense, you'd find pretty much the same people here defending him for it.

This.

Yep. If some white punk (and make no mistake, all races contain punks) attacked a black man under identical circumstances, I would say the very same. Unfortunate that the kid is dead, but NOT murder.

Exactly.

I don't care what color the participants are, if the one getting his head beaten into the concrete by the one straddling his chest shoots the attacker, that's self defense.

Magorn:The evidence is nowhere NEAR that clear cut. Remember, the jury is the SOLE judge of the credibility of all witnesses and what the facts are in this case. If they chose to believe the wtiness who saw Zimmerman on top of Martin, rather than the witness who claimed the opposite. If they chose to believe the one who said Martin was the one calling for hlp, rather than the ones who identified Zimmerman, all of which they are completely within their rights to do, then they could easily convict, and ther would be zero grounds for a "Judgment NOV" from the judge vacating the conviction. Do I find that likely? No in the slightest, but could they convict on the evidence presented? Yes indeed. And the likelyhood of conviction in my estimation goes up significantlyis GZ takes the stand in his own defense.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, that is not the standard for evaluating the evidence. The standard is that the evidence must conclusively rule out the not-guilty hypotheses, and leave only the guilty hypothesis as the sole reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

This evidence doesn't do that.

As a result, the case should not go to the jury.

But it will, because Obama and Holder turned this case into a political show trial. Nothing about this judge indicates she has the requisite level of intelligence and integrity to stand up to that degree of political pressure.

After the prosecution has rested its case and all their evidence is out in the open, I think it's pretty obvious to see that they did not meet the legal standard for proving that it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

ELKAY:Magorn: tenpoundsofcheese: ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.

Liar.

His wife made misleading statements.George never lied or said anything.The prosecution said that George had an obligation to tell them which is what they whined about.George never did have that obligation.

Do try to keep up with the facts rather than the lies

I would commend you to the study of the crimes "subornation of Perjury" and "Misprison of a Felony" both of which GZ committed during his bond hearing, which, if he takes the stand will be fair game for the prosecutors to talk about because a witnesses' credibility is always relevant to his testimony

I wouldn't bother. The Zimmerman fan club will never admit that Saint Zimmerman ever did anything wrong.

You claimed he lied to the court about his finances.That, along with almost all you other "facts", is wrong.Deal with it.

George is not perfect, but people like you who are either ignorant of the facts, liars, or even worse, unwilling to change their understanding of the "facts" when presented with evidence are far less perfect than George.

For all the manslaughter wanting people, no evidence for that either. According to what we have seen, the defense didn't even need to present a case. Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Compare it to manslaughter in a car, you have to be doing something negligent. George was not, no matter how many douches say keeping an eye on someone is illegal.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger".

So says the 5th amendment. There are exceptions in some jurisdictions where instead of using a Grand Jury the same evidence that one would show to the Grand Jury can be shown to a judge instead to make a determination on whether the evidence is good enough to show that a jury may convict no matter by how slim of a margin it might be. Hence the old saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich as the evidence bar is set very low at that point.

An indictment must always be signed off on by a judge although if a Grand Jury has signed off on it is simply signed as a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's in a legal sense. The judge isn't going to bother looking at the evidence.

NeoKhan:limeyfellow: AeAe: nekom: LasersHurt:Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good. A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died. It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.

not murder. manslaughter.

What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman admitted to following the guy in a car for a number of blocks, then when he sees an appropiate time he jumps out and goes after the kid with no sort of announcement of intent, he enters the personal space of Trayvon Martin to confront himself. If Martin had been older and shot Zimmerman and survive the case would have been thrown out as self defense, especially with the phone calls that Zimmerman made that he is after the kid.

Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?

Zimmerman claims that Trayvon Martin was banging his head against the cement and reaching for the gun when he shot Martin. Therefore Zimmerman had no real option to retreat at the time of the gunshot, and it's ordinary self-defense. Stand your Ground would have applied if Trayvon were slowly advancing towards him, Zimmerman had time to run or pull out his gun, and decided that the gun was the better choice. In short, Stand your Ground is about when you don't fear for your life, but instead fear for your property. In practice, of course, people who actually fear for their life at the time (but in retrospect could probably have gotten away) may use the Stand your Ground defense.

In theory and in practice, SYG laws were put into place to allow abused women who rightly fear assault or death at the hands of their husband/significant other to shoot and kill them within their own home, without having to retreat. Technically this was just a clarification of the standard self-defense doctrine, because your home is considered a 'safe place' to retreat to in any circumstance. It was added to make this action explicit, and generalized so that you need not be the legal owner of an area - it is now simply a place in which you're legally allowed to be.

While most battered women who resorted to violence against their attacker are acquitted of charges, it's long and drawn out, financially difficult at a time when they may be cut off from their sole source of income (the abuser) and unnecessarily difficult if the woman did not kill the attacker outright, so they also rejiggered things to allow for a special SYG pretrial hearing which would expedite the entire case.

Based on a non-braindead analysis of the purpose of this law, and the prior case history where it has been invoked, and his own description of the events, it's unreasonable to expect that Zimmerman would have been able to get the case dismissed based on a SYG premise. It's even less likely that Martin - had he survived, or killed zimmerman instead - would have been able to invoke it.

Really, all it is, is just a way to get rabid anti-gun crowds whipped up into a frenzy, and frenzy means readership to media sources.

Mr_Fabulous:I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

ELKAY:Mr_Fabulous: I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

This

Unlike you two, there are a lot of adults who don't make their decisions based on race but rather facts.

Mr_Fabulous:I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

Mr_Fabulous:I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

Including you?

You are obviously speaking for yourself. That is your issue, don't project it on everyone else.

Cpl.D:The important thing to remember here is that it's apparently legally and morally correct to follow someone and confront them in the dark, get them to hit you by acting in a threatening manner, then shoot them dead.

Headso:I think the situation here is people feel like what happened was wrong but technically it isn't illegal so there's a disconnect between what mob rule wants and what can be delivered. I personally feel that at a fundamental level that Martin's death is the fault of Zimmerman, he set the rube goldberg machine in motion.

I definitely agree. It's just not murder and this should have never went to trial. There are plenty of critical moments where either Zimmerman or Martin could have prevented this, but due to ego, pride and poor decision making, it all came together.

And she was totally a reliable witness. Speaker of the gospel, I tell ya.

Obviously not, but she's the only person to offer a course of events other than Zimmerman.

And that's unfortunate, because I don't like the idea of taking his word for it either.

What bothers me is when people who are quick to say she's a totally unreliable witness use parts of her testimony to back their position. If she's unreliable, she's unreliable and you can't use anything she says.

True. But her role is to help the state prove their case. And even if unreliable, and untruthful, one of her statements absolutely hurts the side she's there to help. That is important.

That said, I'm not sure she lied. I don't think she issmart enough to intentionally mislead. I think she is just not very bright. and cant tell the difference between what she thinks and what she knows. "I heard wet grass."

ELKAY:heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.

Liar.

His wife made misleading statements.George never lied or said anything.The prosecution said that George had an obligation to tell them which is what they whined about.George never did have that obligation.

Anyone else notice what the prosecution did there with the 911 call and feel it was intentional?

They stopped the call immediately after the 911 operator asked what race the suspect was, questioned the witness with some pointless banter for a minute or two, then as soon as they resumed the call it started with Zimmerman saying "black male".

I get the feel that was intentional to try to plant it in the jurors' minds that Zimmerman was making it a point to mention the suspect was black.

"The crazy ass LARP cop ran me down and threatened my life. He had a gun and was gonna killed me. Once I had the super hand I couldn't stop hitting him till I knew he wasn't getting up. So sad he died"

There'd be pretty much the same amount of evidence as to who started what as we have now.

If the players were reversed with the same evidence (or lack thereof) that we have currently, I'd say Martin should walk.

Popcorn Johnny:The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

It does happen, but not very often.

It absolutely never happens in high profile cases wrapped in politics. This one was going to a jury the day a special prosecutor was appointed.

Xcott:How did he end up in that situation in the first place? Because he was a vigilante. He was supposed to call the cops and then stay in his car playing Angry Birds; instead, he decided to act like a cop, go after and confront the kid and get into a fight with him. That's a pretty clear-cut case of taking the law into your own hands.

How dare he act like he had the legal right to walk around his own neighborhood and observe and report on the suspicious behavior of someone who looked out of place and was exhibiting odd behavior for the weather conditions!

Mid_mo_mad_man:For those out there still think Zimmerman is angry bigot hunting black young men heres a question.If you beleave the states case is so solid why wouldn't a grand jury indite him?

They believe it because of racism obviously. The Sanford police department, the FBI, all racist for not charging Zimmerman. Let's not take into account that Zimmerman tried to get two white cops fired for beating a black man and went on a year-long crusade to get justice for him. Oh, and those cops were on the investigation team for this case and STILL didn't want to bring charges against Zimmerman.

Mid_mo_mad_man:For those out there still think Zimmerman is angry bigot hunting black young men heres a question.If you beleave the states case is so solid why wouldn't a grand jury indite him?

The grand jury never got the chance. The State Attorney was planning on presenting the case to the grand jury before the governor stepped in and appointed a special prosecutor. She chose to bring charges via information rather than indictment.

stellarossa:I agree; the uncle came across as extremely credible & inscrutable.

He was like a Latino Clint Eastwood character. Honorably Discharged marine, Law Enforcement officer, straight as an iron bar. A no-nonsense real man. And he was great, succinct and credibility beyond reproach. He made a fool out of the state when they even dared to question whether he'd lie for Zimmerman AND he knew that the voice on the tape was Zimmerman's without even knowing what the context of that 9-1-1 call from outside the room.

The more you eat the more you fart:I think one thing is damn clear at this point: Trayvon wasnt the innocent little angel his parents and media tried to pretend he was....in fact quite the opposite..he was a little thug on his way to being a bigger thug.

Also, trayvon used racial epithets just like GZ did...bit i guess thats pointless.

What racial epithet did GZ use? As far as I've heard, only TM used one.

Smackledorfer:ChaosStar: IdBeCrazyIf: ChaosStar: Yes, fights do happen, but when one person moves the fight from assault and/or battery to attempted murder, responsibilities for being in that fight have no bearing on the ensuing defense of life.

Never been in a fight have you?

Things escalate quickly, but just because they do...that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with.

I've been in multiple fights, key word there: fights.I have only once been part of an attempted murder, which is what a fight becomes when someone uses lethal force during the fight.Escalating it to that level does, in fact, absolve you of your legal responsibilities for being in the fight, hence the Use of Force by Aggressor statute.

Where were you fighting, inside a padded room? I've been in play fights with friends where we came close to smashing a skull in on a concrete floor or a metal support beam. You cannot perform the simplest of take-downs on a hard surface with in a room with hard furniture without there being a risk of serious bodily harm, and nobody defending themselves against an assailant they don't know, who is attacking them for reasons they don't know, should ever be forced to hold back to meet whatever silly fighting etiquette you believe exists.

Giltric: He stopped following Trayvon therefore he broke off the confrontation as an aggressor. Trayvon doubled back and went after Zimmemrman after Trayvon went all the way home thus initiating Trayvons role as an aggressor.

I'm surprised. I didn't think you would be in support of a duty to retreat.

You seem to be missing some important points that are critical for being able to understanding the big picture here. When you are horsing around with your friends, there is no intent to actually hurt someone. If someone does get hurt, you stop and check if the person is alright, you don't keep raining down punches.

Things escalate quickly, but just because they do...that does not absolve you of your responsibility of putting yourself there to begin with.

Walking behind someone is not illegal. You are trying to say that a person who has every right to be where they are is responsible for what happens to them while they are doing nothing illegal. This is like saying that a mugging victim is to blame for being somewhere where he might get mugged or a rape victim being to blame for wearing a low cut blouse. That is patently not the case and there are several cases to back that up. The mugger is always at fault and so is the rapist. How people like you don't seem to get that boggles the mind.

IdBeCrazyIf:ChaosStar: No, we're really not. There is no legalese.So you don't think GZ had his head smacked into the concrete?

Perhaps, but then again he did follow Tray and put himself into that situation.

We'll never really know what touched it off, but one could reasonably argue that someone following you at night could be construed as threatening.

He stopped following Trayvon therefore he broke off the confrontation as an aggressor. Trayvon doubled back and went after Zimmemrman after Trayvon went all the way home thus initiating Trayvons role as an aggressor.

This has been verified through witness testimony.

This is why it is not self defense if you stop fighting to go get a gun and shoot the person you are fighting.

Cletus C.:Is Martin's stepmother testifying for the defense? They deposed her, for some reason. She told Anderson Cooper she's pissed about being dealt out of the limelight after she did most of the raising of the kid.

IdBeCrazyIf:Because we are getting in legalese territory which always requires things being added. And I did answer the question, no he was not defending himself to the physical level the event elevated to.

It is a little known fact that a women being raped has to try to rape the man raping her back and has to wait for the man raping her to escalate the level of violence by hitting her before she can hit him.

jaybeezey:Your assumption is specious at best. Almost 2 years have past since Mr. Horner shot and killed 2 men robbing his next door neighbor in Pasadena, TX. That one didn't even go to trial even though the minority communties were up in arms. Both men were hispanic, both may have been "undocumented aliens".

The only reason Mr. Horner didn't go to trail is because a responding officer testified to the Grand Jury that he saw Mr. Horner shoot only after the individuals advanced on him.

IdBeCrazyIf:ChaosStar: You're purposely being obtuse, because your stance has nothing solid to stand on.Following Martin doesn't justify lethal force, if the concrete was used, that's lethal force. What touched it off, if following is threatening, neither matter.

Yes because obviously just before the fight occurred Martin was thinking to himself "That concrete is going to kill this cracker ass fool"

Fights do and happen, but just because they escalate to specific levels does not absolve you of your responsibilities for being in that fight.

Now you resort to condescension because you have no position.Yes, fights do happen, but when one person moves the fight from assault and/or battery to attempted murder, responsibilities for being in that fight have no bearing on the ensuing defense of life.

Smackledorfer:ChaosStar: What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.None of it. At all. Period.Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.Not my opinion, that's the law.

Somehow I doubt that if treyvon had killed zimmerman if zimmermans gun had misfired that you would be in all these threads rabidly attacking anyone saying treyvon was guilty.

What you also leave out is that it is up to the jury to decide whether one person's actions rise to a level justifying lethal force. You cannot simply say 'hurr I thought he'd kill me' and you definitely cannot expect the jury to ignore a little thing like how you were running around playing cop for fun in the first place.

And by the way, you have serious ignorance about what justifies lethal force. Nobody gets to go around punching people in the face and then murder the person who is too good at defending themselves. Is concrete lethal force? Sure.Depending on the situation, so is the angry guy stalking you at night, being racist, and physically assaulting you. That is what this trial is about.

If I was out for a walk and you started beating me up, I would be justified in slipping a knife in you. You would not be justified in shooting me as I pulled it. I am under no obligation to presume you are only going to hurt me in a manner other than serious bodily harm, nor to trust that those couple mma matches I watched will let me fend you off.

Of course I wouldn't, because Martin would have killed GZ without lethal provocation. Martin escalated it to lethal force, so he has no legal standing to kill GZ when GZ attempts to protect himself.

No, it's really not up to the jury to decide if whether a person's actions justify lethal force in self defense. That's the job of the investigators.

So you say I'm ignorant about lethal force, then say that what I attest was lethal force was, in fact, lethal force..? Some angry guy following you (not stalking), being racist, and even physically assaulting you is not lethal force.

If you were out for a walk, and I started beating you up, you would not be justified in putting a knife in me unless you felt your life was in danger. If I'm punching you in the arm or shoulder, pushing you around, slapping you in the face, your life is not in danger. If I'm beating your head into the concrete, or punching you squarely in the face over and over, you have legitimate fear for your life.

ChaosStar:You're purposely being obtuse, because your stance has nothing solid to stand on.Following Martin doesn't justify lethal force, if the concrete was used, that's lethal force. What touched it off, if following is threatening, neither matter.

Yes because obviously just before the fight occurred Martin was thinking to himself "That concrete is going to kill this cracker ass fool"

Fights do and happen, but just because they escalate to specific levels does not absolve you of your responsibilities for being in that fight.

IdBeCrazyIf:ChaosStar: No, we're really not. There is no legalese.So you don't think GZ had his head smacked into the concrete?

Perhaps, but then again he did follow Tray and put himself into that situation.

We'll never really know what touched it off, but one could reasonably argue that someone following you at night could be construed as threatening.

You're purposely being obtuse, because your stance has nothing solid to stand on.Following Martin doesn't justify lethal force, if the concrete was used, that's lethal force. What touched it off, if following is threatening, neither matter.

ChaosStar:It's not a SYG "provision", this immunity to civil action is granted to anyone justifiably using the self defense statute.

So that's part of the general self defense statute and not specific to SYG? I guess he'll be protected from litigation then. Still what a mess. This is a teachable moment here, don't go out looking for trouble, even if it's legal it's going to wreck your life.

limeyfellow:AeAe: nekom: LasersHurt:Neither way is good, if you ask me. And you didn't. But I told you anyway.

No outcome is good. A couple of knuckleheads collided and a young man died. It's not murder, but it is a sad situation for all involved.

not murder. manslaughter.

What I yet to see though is why stand your ground laws don't apply to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman admitted to following the guy in a car for a number of blocks, then when he sees an appropiate time he jumps out and goes after the kid with no sort of announcement of intent, he enters the personal space of Trayvon Martin to confront himself. If Martin had been older and shot Zimmerman and survive the case would have been thrown out as self defense, especially with the phone calls that Zimmerman made that he is after the kid.

Isn't that what stand your ground laws are about. If you fear for your life you have the right to fight back with all weapons at your disposal?

Zimmerman claims that Trayvon Martin was banging his head against the cement and reaching for the gun when he shot Martin. Therefore Zimmerman had no real option to retreat at the time of the gunshot, and it's ordinary self-defense. Stand your Ground would have applied if Trayvon were slowly advancing towards him, Zimmerman had time to run or pull out his gun, and decided that the gun was the better choice. In short, Stand your Ground is about when you don't fear for your life, but instead fear for your property. In practice, of course, people who actually fear for their life at the time (but in retrospect could probably have gotten away) may use the Stand your Ground defense.

While I don't feel any laws were broken and Martin earned his death, it's still a loss when a 17 year old kid is so farked up they need to be put down.

If society had a place for violent young thugs to get out of that life one step at a time, instead of just kicked out of regular people school, we might have caught him and people like him before shiat like this goes down. If Martin hadn't been suspended from school it would have been better for Zimmerman, better for Martin, better for everyone.

When citizens kill each other instead of helping expand prosperity, it's always a tragedy.

I firmly beleave his parents failed him. On the night of the shooting he was allowed to walk the streets even thou he was suspended for a drug incident. Dad didn't check up on him till morning. Wtf dad!

nekom:The Muthaship:I can understand how someone would think he's guilty of manslaughter based on what they believe happened. But, there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

I WANT him to be guilty because I think what he did was way out of line, but I'd agree, there's just no evidence to find for murder or manslaughter. There may be grounds for a civil case of wrongful death, if the law doesn't shield him from that. The whole situation just sucks for all involved, and nobody is going to bring that kid back to life, but this trial is a farce.

I believe that under Florida state law, if he's found not guilty by the jury, that shields him from any civil suit:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.-(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,

The way I read that, if he's acquitted by reason of self-defense, he's not liable, and can't be sued.